The Supreme Court rules on independence referendum - what next?

The Supreme Court has today ruled on the legal position of the Scottish government's right to hold an independence referendum. 

The verdict can be read here.

The verdict is not remotely surprising. It emphasises that the Scottish Parliament has no jurisdiction over reserved matters and that holding a referendum without Westminster's approval would be outwith Holyrood's legislative competence. Clearly the devolution settlement was never intended to give the Scottish Parliament this power and the UK's "defence" was essentially to point to the Scotland Act. 

What the verdict does is rule on the legal question asked by the Scottish government. What it does not do is take a political position - it's vital to stress this. The Supreme Court is not acting as an extension of Westminster; neither is it making a direct judgment on Scotland's political status. What it is doing is interpreting existing law.

The Supreme Court does not create law and neither does it make political decisions. The verdict makes sense, however disappointing it may be for some of us. Whether the Scottish Parliament should have the power to call a referendum is another matter entirely, but that was not the question the Supreme Court was seeking to address.

What I will say is that the decision to refer the question to the Supreme Court was a political one. The Scottish government knew exactly what it was doing, and while it will be somewhat disappointed by the outcome it will - in all likelihood - come as little surprise. Both the Scottish government and the SNP will have prepared themselves for this and they will have responses planned.

The immediate effect will be that no independence referendum will now take place in 2023. I may be thinking cynically, but I suspect the Scottish government being told by a UK institution that it has no power to call such a referendum is better news for the SNP at the moment than being given the green light. 

It's also no great "victory" for Westminster or the Union. While Westminster has the legal right to deny a referendum, it would be counter-productive to do so.  Any Westminster government essentially telling Scotland it has no right of self-determination would only be helping to make the pro-independence case. 

The Scottish Government didn't go to the Supreme Court because they felt they had a solid case. The government is more than aware of the contents of the Scotland Act 1998 and it was always doubtful that it contained previously unexplored powers to hold independence referenda - after all, the 2014 referendum required Westminster's approval. But there were important legal questions it wanted to test, and it put forward some well-formulated and highly complex arguments. Perhaps more significantly, it knew that it couldn't really lose - even if the verdict did not go their way (as it hasn't) there now exists a legal verdict that independence supporters can argue confirms Scotland's subservient status. The SNP will no doubt claim that the ruling represents another unfair roadblock on the path to independence.

Let me put it bluntly - this was not an unexpected setback for the Scottish government. It is not a bad thing for Nicola Sturgeon. I would go so far as to claim that taking this to the Supreme Court was a strategic masterstroke from the Scottish government.

This verdict is not quite as significant as some people are claiming it to be. It will not "put the issue of independence to bed for a while" as one BBC journalist has claimed this morning. This is merely the beginning of a struggle between Holyrood and Westminster. The decision of the Supreme Court was never going to be the end of the story, and anyone thinking otherwise hasn't been watching closely. The Supreme Court decision changes nothing. It merely confirms what was already widely understood. If it wasn't clear previously that talk of an "equal partnership" was utter nonsense, it is now - Scotland can only withdraw from the Union it entered into in 1707 with the consent of other parties. That may be the legal position, but politically speaking it is more than problematic.

What will happen next? Not much really. The proposed October 2023 referendum is now definitely off the table, although how committed the Scottish Government and the SNP were to delivering that is questionable. In the longer-term, the fight for independence will go on and the political conversation around Scotland's constitutional future will continue unabated, albeit against the backdrop of UK institutions being seen to deny Scots a democratic vote. We are likely to experience further disunity, frustration, anger and fragmentation in the coming months and years. . 

The ball is now in Rishi Sunak's court. He's unlikely to make any concessions to the Scottish government at present. Ultimately the Supreme Court's verdict was not really about independence - an issue that can only be decided by politicians and the people of Scotland. Until one side or the other backs down, expect more of the same arguments - only with increased intensity.